In the Interest of A.F., S.F., G.F., and L.B. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00380-CV
__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., S.F., G.F., AND L.B.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 88th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 63404
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial in a suit affecting the parent-child

relationship, the trial court terminated the parent-child relationship

between A.F., S.F., G.F., L.B. and their mother. 1 In the trial court’s
0 F

1To protect the identity of the children, we have used pseudonyms

for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. R. App. P.
9.8(b)(2). Additionally, the trial court terminated the rights of the father
of the four children when it terminated Mother’s parental rights based
on an irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment that he signed prior to trial.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K). After the trial court signed
the order terminating the parent-child relationship with the four
children, Father did not file an appeal.
1
Order of Termination, the trial court found by clear and convincing

evidence that Mother: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed her

children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their

physical or emotional well-being; (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly

placed her children with persons who engaged in conduct that

endangered their physical or emotional well-being; (3) constructively

abandoned her children under the conditions prescribed by Texas Family

Code section 161.001(b)(1)(N); and (4) failed to comply with the

provisions of a court-ordered-family-service plan that were sufficient to

justify a ruling terminating her parental rights. 21 F

The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s parent-child

relationship with the children is in the children’s best interest. 3 Based on
2 F

these findings, the trial court signed an order terminating Mother’s

relationship with the children—seven-year-old G.F., five-year-old S.F.,

2Id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (condition-based endangerment), (E)
(conduct-based endangerment), (N) (constructive abandonment), and (O)
(failed to comply with a court-ordered family service plan).
3Id. § 161.001(b)(2) (best interest).

2
two-year-old A.F., and nine-month-old L.B. Subsequently, Mother timely

filed her notice of appeal. 4
3 F

After Mother appealed, Mother’s court-appointed attorney

submitted a brief. In the brief, Mother’s attorney states that she “finds

an absence of meritorious grounds for appeal and submits the basis of

any appeal in this case would be frivolous[.]” 5 The brief presents the
4 F

attorney’s professional evaluation of the record and explains why no

arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s judgment. The

attorney represented to the Court that she gave Mother a copy of the

4Mother’s notice of appeal was filed in Trial Court Cause Number

63404 since the Order of Termination the trial court signed in that cause
addresses the Department’s claims against Mother and all four of her
children, including L.B. We note, however, that Trial Court Cause
Number 63404 was consolidated with a case the Department
subsequently filed against Mother and Father, Trial Court Cause
Number 63859 on September 15, 2023. In Trial Court Cause Number
63859 the Department asked the trial court to terminate Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights to L.B., who was born after the Department filed
Cause Number 63404 in which it asked the trial court to terminate their
rights to G.F., S.F., and A.F. In Cause Number 63404, the Department
filed a motion to consolidate, asked the trial court to consolidate the two
cases into the lower cause number (Cause Number 63404), and the trial
court granted the motion so the case involving all four children could be
handled in Trial Court Cause Number 63404.
5See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161

S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders
procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases).
3
Anders brief that she filed, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se

brief, and notified Mother of how she could access the appellate record.

Subsequently, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Mother

that she had the right to file a pro se response and of the deadline for

doing so. Mother, however, did not file a response.

We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the brief

Mother’s attorney filed in the appeal. 6 Based on our review, we agree
5 F

with Mother’s attorney that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. 7 Ample 6 F

evidence was admitted in the trial to support the trial court’s predicate

findings under subsections (D), (E), (N), and (O), and to support its best

interest finding under subsection 161.001(b)(2).

The evidence the trial court heard shows the problems in the home

centered on Mother’s and Father’s use of methamphetamine. The trial

court heard testimony that the children’s parents were using

6See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);
In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.).
7See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders

briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in
the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619.
4
methamphetamine while the children were at home. The testimony and

exhibits admitted into evidence reflect that Mother and Father were

involved in incidents of domestic violence that occurred in the home,

some of which occurred while the children were present. The trial court’s

family-service-plan required Mother to obtain drug treatment and drug

testing during the pendency of the case, but the trial court heard

testimony that Mother failed to comply with that provision and many of

the other requirements of the plan. Mother also didn’t maintain regular

contact with the children after the they were removed from Mother’s

custody and placed in foster care.

As the factfinder, it isn’t arguable that the evidence doesn’t support

the trial court’s reasonable conclusion on this record that Mother’s illegal

drug use presented a risk to Mother’s ability to parent and endangered

her four children. It is also not arguable that terminating Mother’s

relationship with her children given the evidence that she didn’t either

obtain or complete a drug treatment plan is in their best interest given

her historical use of meth. For all these reasons, we find it unnecessary

to require the trial court to appoint new counsel to re-brief the appeal. 8
7 F

8Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

5
The trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights is

affirmed. 9
8 F

AFFIRMED.

HOLLIS HORTON
Justice

Submitted on March 20, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 4, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

9We note that if Mother decides to pursue review by the Supreme

Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Mother “by filing a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016).
6